Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idlempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description usefully clarifies that 'pause' is achieved by a field change rather than deletion, but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, or partial-update semantics for omitted fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the actor scoping ('Seller:') comes first. It is slightly terse in a way that reads like a label list rather than guidance, but nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a five-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, this leaves too much unsaid: the required listing_id is never mentioned, no auth/ownership requirement is stated, and no indication of what an update returns or whether omitted fields are preserved.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load; it maps price to price_minor, reseller share to reseller_share_pct, and pause to active. However it omits listing_id entirely and gives no units, formats, or ranges (e.g. minor-currency price, percent bounds), leaving real ambiguity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (change) plus resource (listing) and enumerates the mutable fields: price, description, reseller share, and pause. An agent can distinguish it from create_listing, get_listing, or my_listings. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'Seller:' prefix implies the actor and context but the description never says when to use this versus create_listing, boost_listing, or resell, nor any prerequisite (e.g. that the listing must belong to the caller). No exclusions or alternative routing are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.